Definition/general characteristics of feudalism

[bailey_187]

In "Studies in the development of Capitalism", Maurice Dobb defined Feudalism as: “virtually identical with what we usually mean by serfdom: an obligation laid on the producer by force and independently of his own volition to fulfil certain economic demands of an overlord, whether these demands take the form of services to be performed or of dues to be paid in money or in kind”

And described the general characteristics of feudalism as: (1) “a low level of technique, in which the instruments of production are simple and generally inexpensive, and the act of production is largely individual in character; the division of labour...being at a very primitive level of development” (2) “production for the immediate needs of the household or village-community and not for the wider market” (3) “demesne-farming: farming on the lord’s estate, often on a considerable scale, by compulsory labour-services” (4) “political decentralisation” (5) “conditional holding of land by lords on some kind of service tenure” (6) “possession by a lord of judicial or quasi-feudal functions in relation to the dependent population”

What are the critcisms you have of this? Do you agree with Sweezys criticism of the definition that it does not identifying a system of production?

(p.s. i know there is a whole book on this*, before anyone recommends me it, i would like to see a debate about it here though)

*Rodney Hilton - The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, if anyone is interested .

[A.R.Amistad]

I think this is a good definition. But "Feudalism" itself might not be the proper term, since it implies a certain social structure identifiable with Japan and Europe. There were societies that preceded capitalism that fit this correct definition, particularly the pre-Civil War American South, that could be called "feudal" yet had real differences between the European model of it.

[JazzRemington]

It wasn't alway the case that lords forced serfs to farm their demesne as an obligation. When the money economy picked up in the late 12th-earth 13th century, many lords began to rent out their demesne in exchange for cash payments. But with the crash of teh mid-to-late 13th century, these tenants were essentially forced back into serfdom because they'd be forced off the land and had no where else to go.

The conditional holding of land is kind of misleading. The granting of a fief was a way of supporting a specialized fighting class (since money was effectively worthless between the breakup of the Carolingian Empire in the 9th century and the economic revival of the 13th century). The fief was technically property of ultimately the king (though in practice it was often difficult to find the ultimate authority of any given area), so the fief-holder was given the right to manage the fief (make improvements, settle people, divide the fief up further, etc.) and enjoy any revenues it generated, in exchange for at least military service for so many days out of the year (in times of peace, this could be commuted to cash). Vassals had a fierce independent streak and often were difficult to remove from a fief, if they were strong enough. Thus, it was possible for a vassal to become the de-facto ultimate authority of a given area and ignore his lord, if he was strong enough.

I don't understand what he means by point 6.